MUMBAI: Most of the Sahara Group properties that Sebi has ordered to be attached have already been pledged. Sebi may not be able to sell many of these properties to recover funds to repay bondholders as they have been pledged by the Sahara Group to raise funds.

The regulator had also ordered its promoters to restrain from disposing or in any manner encumbering their movable and immovable properties.

Sebi, however, has created more trouble for the Subrata Roy-led Sahara Group, which may find it difficult to do many of its businesses as it will not be able to use these attached properties.

"Sebi has attached properties based on our affidavit in Supreme Court dated January 4, 2012. Since then, a lot of things have changed. After the Supreme Court judgment in August 2012, we have redeemed most of the bondholders. I am aware a part of the money was raised by pledging these (attached) properties as securities with the banks and financial institutions," Sahara counsel Kishore Lahiri told TOI.

Sahara claims that most of the bondholders' money has been paid and it has deposited Rs 5,120 crore with Sebi , which is more than enough to pay the remaining bondholders.

"If that be the case (Sahara assets already being pledged) I doubt if Sebi will be able to recover the funds by attaching these properties as it would lead to further litigations. If there is a third party interest already created in these attached properties, Sebi just can't sell them to recover money," said another senior counsel, who is not involved in the case, on condition of anonymity.

However, Ashwin Mathew, consultant with Khaitan & Co, differs. "The regulators will have an upper hand on the attached property compared to the third parties, who are bound by agreements with Sahara. No doubt, it will lead to litigations and further complicate the matter but the creditors will have to recover their dues from Sahara firms." Harish Salve, a senior Supreme Court counsel and former Solicitor General, told TOI, "It's not whether Sebi can recover or not recover the dues by attaching the Sahara properties. The exact values of these properties are not known. The Supreme Court has taken the matter very seriously and it's the liability of the Sahara firms to repay bondholders or they will be inviting serious problems."

But the Sahara counsel is livid. "I just can't understand how Sebi can do that (attach properties), when these properties do not belong to the two companies in question. You can't attach properties of promoters of company, which is limited by liability. The details of the assets were furnished for different reasons as the court wanted to know where the investors' funds have been invested," said Lahiri. Sahara senior counsel Ram Jethmalani, however, declined to comment as the matter was sub judice.